Talk:Consistent Life Ethic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Politics Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Anti-war, a collective approach to organizing and unifying articles related to the anti-war movement. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Scarequotes

Why "economic injustice"? Why not simply: economic injustice? To put it in scarequotes suggests that it is only so-called by a few people, in turn suggesting that it doesn't exist, in turn suggesting that all economic consequences are just. Only a radical market-fundamentalist (and a rich one at that) would advocate this view ... (I've edited it out). LeoTrottier 07:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Symbol

Did the person or persons who invented the symbol recognize that it very strongly resembles a number of traditional symbols of the Christian Trinity? See Image:BorromeanRings-Trinity.png , Image:Triquetra-Vesica-solid.png , or some other images in commons:Category:Holy Trinity, etc. AnonMoos 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't create the image, but, regarding its similarity to other symbols...is that a bad thing? KHM03 17:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it's bad or good, but it seems slightly peculiar for a movement which claims not to be tied to any one particular religion... AnonMoos 18:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the image to the article, but now I do wonder to what extent the symbol is universally recognized by proponents of the ethic. It was designed by the creator of the Consistent Life net ring, and she explains, "The ring logo shows three circles, the circle being a symbol of life, intertwined to signify the consistent ethic theme" ([1]). But it seems to be the only symbol for the ethic that anyone has created, and a number of websites use it. I can't see any explicit connection to the Christian Trinity. Fishal 20:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I used to be a board member of Consistent Life, and I am unaware of this symbol ever being used except on Kelly's web ring, which is her own personal project. It is not a symbol of the movement as a whole. --JayareIL 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Division

Perhaps this article should be divided into 3 new ones, for the philosophical, religious, and political aspects present? DeathLoofah 18:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please provide more context

I like to troll around Wikipedia looking for articles to delete or clean up. I'm leaving this one alone, but it really doesn't satisfy me in terms of providing sources and asserting notability. For a movement with such grandiose ideals, is there nothing more to say about it? YechielMan 02:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision as of 30 April

Seeing as a lot of this content has been lost and I think it could be useful if sourced I'm reproducing it on the talk page here;

The Consistent Life Ethic is an ethical, religious, and political ideology with the basic premise that "all human life is sacred", and that this calls for "a coherent social policy which seeks to protect the rights of the weakest and most vulnerable in our society, the unborn, the infirm, the refugee, the homeless, and the poor." Advocates of the Consistent Life Ethic are consequently opposed to abortion, capital punishment, economic injustice, assisted suicide and euthanasia, and unjust war; there are some who hold that the Consistent Life Ethic opposes all war.

In the United States, one of the pioneering organizations which developed the "consistent" approach was the Prolifers for Survival, founded by Juli Loesch Wiley. Today the ethic is promoted by an umbrella organization called Consistent Life which includes about 400 anti-war, pro-life, nonviolence, Christian, Buddhist, and other organizations. The current movement's formal organization began in 1987, with the creation of the Seamless Garment Network. In November of 2002, the Seamless Garment Network changed its name to Consistent Life. Most of its support initially came from religiously conservative, politically liberal Catholics, including the late Archbishop of Chicago, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, but that has broadened to include people with many religious affiliations as well as atheists. Member groups include such major alternative pro-life groups as Feminists for Life of America and Democrats for Life of America.

The movement is difficult to define in terms of the political spectrum, since those who subscribe to the ethic are often at odds with both the right wing over capital punishment, war, and economic issues, as well as the left wing over abortion, embryo-destructive research, and euthanasia.

Notable exponents include novelist Wendell Berry, the current Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso (the head of state of the Government in exile of Tibet and spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism), Roman Catholic actor Martin Sheen, and atheist Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff.


[edit] See also

[edit] External links

(Categories were removed so as not to show up on Talk page.) HG 01:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential sources -- after the article is restored

After the article is restored, as it should be, we may want to use or include some of the following sources. HG 10:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious Belief and Attitude Constraint TG Jelen - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1990 - JSTOR

Catholicism and Abortion Attitudes in the American States: A Contextual Analysis EA Cook, TG Jelen, C Wilcox - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1993 - JSTOR

Assisted Death and Martyrdom DC Thomasma - Christian Bioethics, 1998 - Taylor & Francis

The Politics of the American Catholic Hierarchy TA Byrnes - Political Science Quarterly, 1993 - JSTOR

Building a Culture of Life: A Catholic Perspective JT McHugh - Christian Bioethics, 2001 - Taylor & Francis

http://www.consistent-life.org/ contains this info:

A Consistent Ethic of Life: An American-Catholic Dialogue (pdf) by Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. The famous "Seamless Garment" speech.

The Nightmares of Choice by Rachel MacNair.

If Our Leaders Had Seen 9/11 as a Crime Against Humanity by Lowell O. Erdahl.

The failure of war by Wendell Berry.

The Dalai Lama's letter to the President of the United States of America regarding the events of September 11.

Dorothy Day Catholic Worker House statement on the 9-11 attacks

Achieving Peace in the Abortion War by Rachel MacNair.

U.S. Shouldn't Fight Violence With Violence by Stephen Zunes.

I'm currently reading God's Politics by Jim Wallis, which has a few chapters devoted to consistent life. I hope to add some material sourced to Wallis as I go. Fishal 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of recent reduction of this article

Based on my knowledge of Catholic ethics, as an outsider, I can say that this is an important topic that seems to have been cut unnecessarily. Granted, it would be helpful to cite sources. However, as I tried to provide above, the sources are readily obtained and verified for the core info. Bernardin's initiative, and the organization-building that has followed, are important steps in late 20th C. (etc) American Catholicism. Whether or not we agree with their political stand, it is certainly a notable articulation and organizational effort for Catholic ethics.

Please comment here if you disagree about the need to put the article back into shape. I have restored some materials without doing a simple revert, please consider what I have done as a neutral but informed person. Thanks, HG 10:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did not coin the term

This is almost a direct quote from the book cited, p.v. The footnote is adequate at the end of the sentence

Also, I think the first sentence is supported by the remainder of the article, assuming it remains properly cited. Of course, the sentence may now be a bit redundant... HG 14:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Why is this talk page included in many categories? As far as I know this is an improper use of categories. Joie de Vivre 00:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories were byproduct of Yechiel's earlier comment. I've deleted them thanks. HG 01:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change to lead paragraphs

Some strange stylistic things happened when the article was reduced and expanded again. I've edited the article so that the first paragraph is a short list of the CLE's ideas, while the second paragraph focuses exclusively on Bernardin's contributions. Fishal 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography

The article is not particularly clear why pornography fits into this. I presume it's because of the belief that pornography is demeaning to the people involved and therefore this is regarded as damaging their lives but this isn't clear Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I don't know how that snuck in there; it's unrelated. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 12:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The opposite

I'm not for a minute suggesting there be an article for the opposing idea. Eg. pro-lifers (anti-choicers) could accuse a pro-choicer of being an anti-lifer or of having an inconsistent life ethic if they were also vegan, anti-war or whatever. But this opposite is consistent. It could/should go in THIS article because it is also consistent.

I adhere to this consistent opposite. Call me anti-life, terrist or Malthusian as you like.

As an absurdist, I think declaring human life to be sacred is silly. Far from being opposed to abortion, war etc. I am in favour of abortion by choice and even breeding licensing and eugenics. I like economic "injustice" and favour military solutions as liberal interventionism. Euthanasia needs tight defining so as to not be capital punishment or murder. But abortion and meat-eating ARE murder and that's fine. Killing is possible for a reason. I am anti-pacifist. I eat meat. Seems consistent to me. And even if it is unethical, philologically, I don't think that stops it being an ethic. --81.105.243.17 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)